Methods : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs [1]
A total of 40 implants were installed (ICI implant, Galimplant, Sarria, Spain), with 3.5 mm in diameter by 10 mm in length. Eight implants in each dog, half per hemimandible. The surface treatment of this implant model is developed by blasting with three different granulometries of Al2O3 and pickling using a hydrofluoric solution (HF) at low temperature and short time, which aims to remove any traces of Al2O3. Plus, the conditioning of the surface was performed using hydrochloric acid solution (HCl) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4) at high temperature and short time (Fig. 1). Twenty titanium healing abutments with 3.5 mm in diameter and 6 mm in length were used.
Five American foxhound dogs of approximately 1 year of age were used in this study. The Ethics Committee for Animal Research at The University of Murcia (Spain) approved the study protocol, which followed the guidelines established by the European Union Council Directive of February 2013 (R.D.53/2013). Clinical examination determined that all animals were in good general health; moreover, all animals presented intact maxillae, without occlusal trauma or mucosal lesions.
The animals were pre-anesthetized with acepromazine 0.12–0.25 mg/kg, buprenorphine 0.01 mg/kg, and medetomidine 35 mg/kg. This mixture was injected intramuscularly in the femoral quadriceps. Animals were then taken to the operating theater, where an intravenous catheter was inserted into the cephalic vein, and propofol (0.4 mg/kg/ min) was continuously infused to maintain the general anesthesia. Conventional dental infiltration anesthesia (articaine 40 mg, 1% epinephrine) was injected at the surgical intraoral sites. All procedures were carried out under the supervision of a veterinary surgeon.
Initially, an impression of each hemimandible was performed to make a surgical guide indicate the implant position, which was predetermined to correspond with the distal root and the center of the crown teeth. Sixty days previous to the surgery, the left mandibular premolars (P2, P3, P4) and molar (M1) were extracted to heal the alveolus sites [21]. In the surgery to place the implants, equally to previous surgery, the teeth of the right hemimandibles were sectioned in a bucco-lingual direction using a tungsten carbide bur so that the roots could be extracted individually without damaging the remaining bony walls. After that, full-thickness mucoperiosteal flaps were increased. The socket of the distal root of each premolar was used as experimental site. For the left sides, a full-thickness mucoperiostal flap was used. All implants were positioned in the crestal bone level. After implant placement, a randomization (randomization.com) was performed to determine which implants received healing abutment and the submerged implants, forming four groups: implant installed in fresh extraction and submerged (group 1), implants in fresh extraction and immediately exposed (group 2), implants installed in healed site and submerged (group 3), and implants in healed site and immediately exposed (group 4). The height of the healing abutments was determined to stay 0.5 mm less of the contact with the corresponding antagonist teeth. No grafting materials were used between the implants and the bony plates. The flaps were closed using single nonabsorbable sutures (Silk® 4-0, Sweden & Martina, Due Carrare). After the surgical procedures, animals received antibiotic treatment (amoxicillin 500 mg, twice a day) and analgesics (ibuprofen 600 mg, three times a day) via the systemic route. Moreover, dogs were fed a soft diet for 7 days, and plaque control was maintained by the application of Sea 4 (Sea 4 teeth, Blue Sea Laboratories, Alicante, Spain). Wounds were inspected daily for clinical postsurgical complications. Two weeks after surgery, sutures were removed. All animals were sacrificed at 12 weeks after the implant insertion by means of an overdose of Pentothal Natrium® (Abbott Laboratories, Madrid, Spain).
Serial posts:
- Abstract : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs
- Background : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs [1]
- Background : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs [2]
- Methods : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs [1]
- Methods : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs [2]
- Methods : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs [3]
- Results : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs
- Discussion : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs [1]
- Discussion : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs [2]
- Discussion : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs [3]
- Conclusions : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs
- References : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs [1]
- References : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs [2]
- References : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs [3]
- References : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs [4]
- References : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs [5]
- Author information : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs
- Ethics declarations : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs
- Rights and permissions : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs
- About this article : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs
- Table 1 Mean, median, standard deviation, and standard error for each group evaluated for lingual as well as buccal sites of the crestal bone height (in mm) for all groups : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs
- Table 2 Mean, median, standard deviation, and standard error for each group evaluated for lingual as well as buccal sites of the tissue thickness (in mm) for all groups : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs
- Table 3 Statistical analysis comparing measured distances (A-B and C-D) among different groups in buccal and lingual sites : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant tissues in implants immediately exposed or submerged in fresh extraction and healed sites: a histological study in dogs
- Fig. 1. Image of the implant (a) and surface (b) used in the present study : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant
- Fig. 2. Parameters measured in each group. Crestal bone loss is the distance between the implant collar (A) and the first bone contact of the crestal bone (B) = A-B bone height; and, the tissue thickness that is the distance from the implant collar (C) to the more external portion of the tissues (D) = C-D tissue thickness. Picrosirius red staining. Original magnification × 16 : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant
- Fig. 3. Images of groups 1 and 2 representing the implants place in fresh sockets sites. Picrosirius red staining. Original magnification × 4 : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant
- Fig. 4. Images of groups 3 and 4 representing the implants place in healed alveolar sites. Picrosirius red staining. Original magnification × 4 : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant
- Fig. 5. Graph comparing the data of buccal (B) and lingual (L) measured the A-B distance (bone height). Group 1 = implant installed in fresh extraction and submerged; group 2 = implants in fresh extraction and immediately exposed; group 3 = implants installed in healed site and submerged; and group 4 = implants in healed site and immediately exposed : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant
- Fig. 6. Graph comparing the data of buccal (B) and lingual (L) measured the C-D distance (tissue thickness). Group 1 = implant installed in fresh extraction and submerged; group 2 = implants in fresh extraction and immediately exposed; group 3 = implants installed in healed site and submerged; and group 4 = implants in healed site and immediately exposed : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant
- Fig. 7. Multiple graphs comparing A-B distance (height bone) (a) and the C-D distance (tissue thickness) (b) among different groups. Differences between groups were assessed by Dunn’s multiple comparison test (*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001). 1 = (group 1) implant installed in fresh extraction and submerged; 2 = (group 2) implants in fresh extraction and immediately exposed; 3 = (group 3) implants installed in healed site and submerged; and 4 = (group 4) implants in healed site and immediately exposed : Evaluation of dimensional behavior of peri-implant